🚀 go-pugleaf

Submitted-by: mike@getafix.cs.uoregon.edu (Michael John Haertel)

In article <192n6aINNlt2@ftp.UU.NET> preece@urbana.mcd.mot.com (Scott E. Preece) writes:
>And if
>you're a responsible engineer, you have to resist standardizing bad
>practice just because it is existing practice.

The problem is that often one person's bad practice is another's holy
grail.  Certainly, we can all agree that some things are bad practice.
But there are also many more things that lots of people still don't
agree on.  For example, I happen to think that Berkeley's socket
interface is a terrible way to do networks.  I know lots of people who
agree with me.  But I also know lots of people who disagree, often
quite vehemently.

So where do you draw the line between resisting the standardization
of bad practice, and gratuitously standardizing some committee member's
notion of the One True Way (existing implementations be damned)?

Existing systems all have their flaws, but at least we know what they
are.  Any new invention, by a standardization commitee or anyone else,
will inevitably include new flaws.  I feel the scope of standards
should be restricted to what's well-understood.  Introducing new flaws
that are not well understood to a standard that is to be carved in
stone is not a Good Idea.


Volume-Number: Volume 29, Number 36